[Pants-of-dog]

You say that illegal migrants lower prices due to their cheap labour, but reject the notion that them needing housing (rental or otherwise) increases demand and thus price for homes and rents.

Yes.

Undocumented workers, because they get paid almost nothing, reduce labour costs for construction.

For the same reason, they usually can not afford anything but the worst housing, and because they are undocumented, they often end up living in conditions that are so bad that it is actually illegal.

So, immigrants this poor are simply unable to compete for any housing except that which should not be on the market anyway.

We all know your personal biases come before logic and that you argue based on what you want to be true regardless of whether it is or not. We all know you will never admit that illegal immigration or any immigration could contribute to any social or economic problems whatsoever, so your opinions on the matter can't be taken seriously.

Then it should be easy to show where I am wrong.

Now, as a Canadian, you are probably aware of the entrepreneurial visa that Canada offers; i.e. you can come here if you can start a business. This visa attracts a wealthier class of immigrants. These folks, for example, drive up the cost of housing just like any population growth.

It is not logical to think someone who slipped off a freighter in Miami is going to put a down payment on a house in a rich neighbourhood.

TLDR: Immigrant’s effect on housing prices is directly related to their wealth when they arrive.

[Puffer Fish]

Yes.
Undocumented workers, because they get paid almost nothing, reduce labour costs for construction.

So should we replace all workers in the economy with undocumented workers?
That would reduce labor costs, wouldn't it?

You see, when you're just talking about one type of job, what you say almost seems like it makes sense. Bring in cheaper workers to lower prices for everyone else.
But it really doesn't make sense, because we can see the absurdity of that type of proposal if we were to advocate doing the same with all jobs.

(I bet the Left would be singing a different tune if it were government workers and teachers being replaced with cheaper foreign workers)


Not only that, but I will point out that construction labor only accounts for a certain percentage of the cost of a house. It might only account for 40% of the final price of having a house built.
(This site says 20-50%, if you look under "Labor")

So we can expect it is going to make wages go down by a greater percentage than it would make construction prices go down.

And in many parts of the U.S. where people live, the plot of land is worth more than the house on it!

[Puffer Fish]

Undocumented workers, because they get paid almost nothing, reduce labour costs for construction.

For the same reason, they usually can not afford anything but the worst housing, and because they are undocumented, they often end up living in conditions that are so bad that it is actually illegal.

So, immigrants this poor are simply unable to compete for any housing except that which should not be on the market anyway.

So you want to bring in immigrants to work for lower wages to reduce prices, but then you're going to complain about capitalism because those workers cannot afford homes?

This doesn't really make sense, when we step back and think about it, does it?

The entire benefit you claim it brings us is something bad that you think should be eliminated.

[Puffer Fish]

Then it should be easy to show where I am wrong.

This visa attracts a wealthier class of immigrants. These folks, for example, drive up the cost of housing just like any population growth.

It is not logical to think someone who slipped off a freighter in Miami is going to put a down payment on a house in a rich neighbourhood.

TLDR: Immigrant’s effect on housing prices is directly related to their wealth when they arrive.

The poor immigrants are living somewhere, usually in packed conditions, with more people inside the home together than you could imagine.

I was told a story by a former police officer who worked in a high immigrant area that there would be 30 people living inside an average sized middle class house. There might be three bedrooms with each bedroom having two separate bunkbeds, so that's a total of 12 people right there. Then a couple sleeping together on a fold-out couch, and another couple sleeping in the garage. Four mats on the floor in the living room for people to sleep on. Maybe throw in a baby crib in one of the rooms too. You can tell lots of the houses in these neighborhoods are jam-packed with people because it's hard to find any open parking place on the street.

And I can guarantee you the immigrants are taking the cheapest options.

So that is in direct competition with younger people trying to move out on their own, or young families who just had a baby.

We wonder why there's a shortage of affordable housing?

[Pants-of-dog]

So should we replace all workers in the economy with undocumented workers?
That would reduce labor costs, wouldn't it?

You see, when you're just talking about one type of job, what you say almost seems like it makes sense. Bring in cheaper workers to lower prices for everyone else.
But it really doesn't make sense, because we can see the absurdity of that type of proposal if we were to advocate doing the same with all jobs.

Strawman.

Not only that, but I will point out that construction labor only accounts for a certain percentage of the cost of a house. It might only account for 40% of the final price of having a house built.
(This site says 20-50%, if you look under "Labor")

Then what is the rest?

So we can expect it is going to make wages go down by a greater percentage than it would make construction prices go down.

And in many parts of the U.S. where people live, the plot of land is worth more than the house on it!

Now you are changing the goalposts to accuse immigrants of bringing down wages.

So you want to bring in immigrants to work for lower wages to reduce prices, but then you're going to complain about capitalism because those workers cannot afford homes?

No, this is a strawman.

You apparently want cheaper houses but also want them to be magically built by white people for free.

This doesn't really make sense, when we step back and think about it, does it?

The entire benefit you claim it brings us is something bad that you think should be eliminated.

Actually, I want all of capitalism eliminated. This minor stuff you complain about is peanuts.

[late]

The total U.S. population in 2021 was 331.9 million. In 2016 it was 323.1 million. The population level has not been going down.

(The country's population level would be going down, but is increasing due to excess immigration from other parts of the world)


There will always be "more jobs than people". Employers in the economy will always be willing to hire additional people if they can pay less.
The question is are those decent paying jobs?

You know, this sounds a lot like the mentality behind slavery. "We need someone to pick that cotton"

For much of my life, there have been more people than jobs.

The current labor shortage will continue to grow for another 4 or 5 years..

Over time, some employers can pay less by not adjusting pay to compensate for inflation. But, as a rule, labor costs don't change much.

This is way over your head, and I am very tired of telling you to go learn.

[Puffer Fish]

For much of my life, there have been more people than jobs.

The current labor shortage will continue to grow for another 4 or 5 years..

If those jobs do not pay enough money, and people struggle to be able live decently on what those jobs pay, then it might not be a good idea to fill all those jobs by bringing in foreign people.

In the old days a lot of these low paying jobs used to be filled by teens and maybe a few younger adults who were not being the most responsible in their lives. And then many of the clerks behind counters were old ladies who could be in retirement but needed some extra money.
But today in many places all these jobs are filled by adult immigrants, in their prime working years.

This seems dysfunctional to me.


If the so-called labour shortage is due to aging, then bringing in lots of immigrants to do the low paying jobs is going to result in a pyramid scheme. Because eventually they will age too, and they will need people to do jobs for them, but they will have even less money saved up than the current generation of old people.

And as I said, you can't keep bringing in more and more people after each cycle. If we were just trying to keep the total population number constant, that would be one thing. But it seems the population number has to keep increasing to be able to keep the jobs filled?
That is unsustainable, I think. If you have to keep increasing the population, do we think that can just go on forever without causing other problems? (Many of which we are already starting to see, I think)
This whole thing is eventually going to reach its end and collapse.

Eventually we're just going to resemble some poverty-stricken overcrowded country like Pakistan or India, or Mexico.

[Puffer Fish]

Seems like we're already selling out the younger generation:


The youngest generation is unhappier than previous generations (in North America section, 13 Feb 2024)

[late]

This seems dysfunctional to me.

It would help if you understood it instead of blathering on..

[Puffer Fish]

If the labour shortages are so "bad", people would be moving to countries like India and Mexico that don't have labour shortages.

But they're not doing that.
Why aren't they doing it?

It's because people don't want to go to a place with lots of poverty.

So maybe labour shortage is not the biggest thing to worry about.


These unfilled jobs you are talking about, do they pay lots of money and allow people to buy a home and have a decent middle class life? I don't think so.

So you just want to fill the country up with poverty, and then rile and complain about that, railing against the evils of "Capitalism".

Your thinking is just not logical, it's almost schizophrenic!!

[Puffer Fish]

In a market, prices are an indicator and send signals. Wages are a form of price.
When wage levels go down, it means there is NOT a shortage.

If there were a real shortage - that is if the demand was outstripping supply, then we would expect to see those wage levels go up.

But it's obvious that type of "demand" just isn't there.


If you want to live in a "high standard of living" country - if you want your children to live in a high standard of living country - you are going to have to live with a "labour shortage" (as you call it).
You can't have lots of low paid workers to do all those jobs without your country being poor!

[Puffer Fish]

No, this is a strawman.

You apparently want cheaper houses but also want them to be magically built by white people for free.

But as I and Unthinking Majority have already explained to you (in posts #6, and #12 ) we would not need to build all these additional homes to help keep prices down if it were not for all these immigrants needing homes.

But more housing would not be needed if it were not for more migrants.

The total U.S. population would not be growing at all right now if it were not for foreign immigration.

The US birth rate is below replacement levels so the US population and demand for housing (and housing prices) would shrink without immigration. Illegal immigrants of all kinds need homes too and it obviously is driving up demand and cost for housing.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is no magical fix from capitalism to address the affordable housing shortage.

———————

But as I and Unthinking Majority have already explained to you (in posts #6, and #12 ) we would not need to build all these additional homes to help keep prices down if it were not for all these immigrants needing homes.

No one is going to stop all immigration. Your racist ideas are unreasonable and not feasible.

[Puffer Fish]

No one is going to stop all immigration. Your racist ideas are unreasonable and not feasible.

Now it's gotten pathetic, when you're accusing me of "racism".


You may see stopping the movement of people across the world as authoritarian and untenable, but aren't you the one who wants to impose Communism and tell private property owners what they have to do with their property?

And really, all these people seem to be choosing to want to go to just a small handful of countries in the world.
You can see many of these illegal migrants travel over four or five different countries before they reach their final desired destination country.


And I'm sure not even you would say it's reasonable or tenable to just drop all borders and let the whole population in the entire world automatically move to whatever country they want.

(You don't think if the U.S. and India suddenly became one country, that wage levels in the U.S. would not quickly go down to the level they are in India? If you think the housing shortages in the U.S. are bad right now...)

[Pants-of-dog]

Now it's gotten pathetic, when you're accusing me of "racism".

No. I am not accusing you of anything.

I am saying your policy ideas are racist.

You are not the victim here.

You may see stopping the movement of people across the world as authoritarian and untenable, but aren't you the one who wants to impose Communism and tell private property owners what they have to do with their property?

So you also see your ideas as authoritirian and untenable but you think this is justified because you also believe all communists are also authoritarian.

And really, all these people seem to be choosing to want to go to just a small handful of countries in the world.
You can see many of these illegal migrants travel over four or five different countries before they reach their final desired destination country.

People living in countries with few economic prospects want to move to countries with many economic prospects.

And your idea is to stop them.

And I'm sure not even you would say it's reasonable or tenable to just drop all borders and let the whole population in the entire world automatically move to whatever country they want.

(You don't think if the U.S. and India suddenly became one country, that wage levels in the U.S. would not quickly go down to the level they are in India? If you think the housing shortages in the U.S. are bad right now...)

No one is claiming that.

[Puffer Fish]

People living in countries with few economic prospects want to move to countries with many economic prospects.

And your idea is to stop them.

And WHY do some countries have so many more economic prospects than other countries?

Can you admit that bringing in all those people is not going to make things better?


I think maybe you need to watch this video:
Immigration Gumballs Short Version

Using gumballs, the video illustrates in an obvious way how immigration cannot even solve 1% of total world poverty.

[Pants-of-dog]

And WHY do some countries have so many more economic prospects than other countries?

The reasons are complex but they can be summarized with one word: colonialism.

Can you admit that bringing in all those people is not going to make things better?

I think maybe you need to watch this video:
Immigration Gumballs Short Version

Using gumballs, the video illustrates in an obvious way how immigration cannot even solve 1% of total world poverty.

Capitalism is not going to solve world poverty. Nor is banning immigration going to solve it.

[Puffer Fish]

The reasons are complex but they can be summarized with one word: colonialism.

This sounds ridiculous and fantastical. How exactly did these countries steal the economic prospects of other countries and manage to still hold onto them even though colonialism has been over for over 60 years (in some cases over 100 years) ?

[Puffer Fish]

Pants-of-dog, do you concede that there is a necessity of keeping immigration limited to a certain amount, or is your argument that not having open borders and allowing anyone in the world to move to any country is racist?

[Pants-of-dog]

This sounds ridiculous and fantastical. How exactly did these countries steal the economic prospects of other countries and manage to still hold onto them even though colonialism has been over for over 60 years (in some cases over 100 years) ?

Ok.

Tell me the exact date when colonialism ended where you are.

Pants-of-dog, do you concede that there is a necessity of keeping immigration limited to a certain amount, or is your argument that not having open borders and allowing anyone in the world to move to any country is racist?

My argument is that high housing costs are due to market factors and any solution to the affordable housing crisis is not going to come from the market.